I do wonder whether SCOTUS justice Scalia properly understands the role that the SCOTUS plays in the democratic system that SCOTUS is a part of. Scalia is harrumphing that decisions got through SCOTUS that don't accord with his own conservative viewpoint. As an originalist, he's just p!ssed that some of the SCOTUS justices don't seem to channel the Founding Father's original Constitutional intent the way that seems to think that he infallibly can.

Pearls of Justice Scalia's discernment.....

Fallacious appeal to tradition....and bandwagon fallacy

"...These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is
contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, 21 cannot possibly be supported by
anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution...."

Click to expand...

Ad Hominem Fallacy

"...The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. ..."

Click to expand...

Scalia seems more obsessed with style, rather than substance. A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black...perhaps Scalia needs re-evaluate his own silly extravagances of thought and expression as much as those that offend him of others'..

The Constitution did not in any way designate SCOTUS as the arbiter of constitutionality or the final authority on what the framers meant or would have done in today's world...and they are certainly not constitutionally mandated with creating new "rights" to be protected. The court itself has "ruled" that it has those powers ever since a very early court determined they would do so.

The amendment process (which, by the way, is how the Bill of Rights was added originally) is the process set forth to make changes an overwhelming majority of the citizenry deem needed.

I once heard someone say that SCOTUS actually has no 'authority' to create law, that's why their rulings always start with "It is the OPINION of this court".

"Never get so lost in the quest to seek out evil that you become unable to seek out what is good."--Me
"You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed."--Zoe, Serenity
"Only fools and profiteers ASK for war."--Xena
"So no more running. I aim to misbehave."--Captain Mal, SerenityMy Amazon Author Page

Scalia and Kennedy have both lamented about the egregious behavior of the current court and it's not them channeling the founding fathers more than the others. There is legal inconsistency between court rulings. Kennedy points out that rationale the SC created and used with striking down DOMA was cited as defense in Obergefeller but in that case the liberal justices rejected their very own rationale they created a couple years earlier. It's quite clear the politics of the liberal justices determine the outcome they desire then they twist and concoct what ever legal interpretation they can invent to justify it. Scalia is upset because the liberal justices are not even trying to interept the founding fathers or the intent of the constitution.

And of course the constitution is quite specific that powers not specifically enumerated for the federal government are reserved for the states and the constitution does not grant the SC the power of judicial review of state law, but that problem goes way back. Scalia himself seems not to be willing to go that far in arguing against the court's legal review but he clearly knows they are ruling outside their realm of the fathers' intended constitutional authority and the way they are doing it defies appropriate jurisprudence regardless of authority.

United States of America = Not a democracy. Representative republic using some democratic principles. Not a democracy now, not a democracy then.

Words matter, that 's why we use them instead of just pointing and grunting (and occasionally throwing our own feces and showing our tookuses).

@Airtime - 100% spot on. The problem is most people don't know, don't care to know, won't learn and are either happy as long as the check clears (wherever it comes from) or are too busy to give it too much thought or simply prefer the conveniences we currently have and aren't interested in upsetting the apple cart.

As hard as we think we have it (use your own definition of hard), it could be worse (regardless of whether it will one day or not, use your own definition of worse) and many are just glad to have it as "easy" as we do.

Reluctor Dominatus - μολών λαβέ - ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ​

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. - The Second Amendment

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. - John Galt

I have received NO government orders of any kind, public or secret (watch for this notice to be removed.)

"According to Scalia, the court is giving citizens rights that the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee, like gay marriage and federally subsidized health insurance."

If Scalia thinks that citizens only have rights that are specifically guaranteed in the Constitution, he is as bat-shit freakin crazy as the rest of them. We have inalienable human rights that predate governments and Constitutions, and those are essentially "guaranteed" by the 9th Amendment. The problem isn't with the Constitution, it is defining what those inalienable human rights are. Some of those inalienable rights are easy to define...the right to self-defense, the right to pro-create, etc. The right to mate with the human of your choice is probably another...though marriage specifically is something defined both non-secularly by religions or secularly by governments. The right to take a human life for your convenience...ie abortion...is probably not one of them...but of course that all depends on your definition of a human and when life begins.

Last edited: Nov 3, 2015

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Willam Pitt

I get your point @chimo, there is no line in the constitution guaranteeing the right of marriage for anyone.

Marriage vows are between a man and a woman before God. The vow is to God not to the other person.

A marriage license is a document issued by the 'state' with certain legal obligations to the other party

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. An example is the constitution of the United States of America.

the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, containing seven articles and 27 amendments, and a total of 4,400 words

Being short, the US Constitution is a bit more difficult to monkey with by corporate entities

As a citizen, Scalia is entitled to his opinions. As Justice, he is entitled to his legal opinions but he got out voted this time.

I'm prolly going to get in trouble for this one but Im going to tackle it anyway.

Abortion. To be very clear, on a personal level I'm opposed to abortion and really think late term abortion is an abomination.

However, being female I think a woman is entitled to control her body. To have no abortion puts women back into slavery until or unless we make men equally responsible for children, I speaking about birth control for men. You can't have freedom for men to poke anyone they want with no consequences and have women only be responsible for birth control. And until this fundamental inequity is addressed by the law or society, then you have to have the abortion option for women who are subject to rape, incest or a pregnancy that could kill them.

The problem isn't just the point of conception, its about freedom for all people not just the freedom for men to have sex unprotected or make women the sole keeper of birth control. And lets face it we need birth control.

I get your point @chimo, there is no line in the constitution guaranteeing the right of marriage for anyone.

Marriage vows are between a man and a woman before God. The vow is to God not to the other person.

A marriage license is a document issued by the 'state' with certain legal obligations to the other party

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. An example is the constitution of the United States of America.

the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, containing seven articles and 27 amendments, and a total of 4,400 words

Being short, the US Constitution is a bit more difficult to monkey with by corporate entities

As a citizen, Scalia is entitled to his opinions. As Justice, he is entitled to his legal opinions but he got out voted this time.

I'm prolly going to get in trouble for this one but Im going to tackle it anyway.

Abortion. To be very clear, on a personal level I'm opposed to abortion and really think late term abortion is an abomination.

However, being female I think a woman is entitled to control her body. To have no abortion puts women back into slavery until or unless we make men equally responsible for children, I speaking about birth control for men. You can't have freedom for men to poke anyone they want with no consequences and have women only be responsible for birth control. And until this fundamental inequity is addressed by the law or society, then you have to have the abortion option for women who are subject to rape, incest or a pregnancy that could kill them.

The problem isn't just the point of conception, its about freedom for all people not just the freedom for men to have sex unprotected or make women the sole keeper of birth control. And lets face it we need birth control.

Click to expand...

I got no problem with a woman's right to control her own body...as long as that right is extended to all humans...which would negate all the goofy drug laws and nanny laws (like seatbelts).

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- Willam Pitt

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand.

So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost. All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."